New Teres Direct Drive Motor Available as Option

Kostas 1,

I may have gotten the model name wrong, but it was the one with three motors. If that's the Maximum Solution, I apologize for the confusion.

I haven't heard this rig myself, the owner doesn't live near me. But he sent photos and we traded emails. His report was similar to what I've heard when comparing elastic drive belts to the non-elastic drive tape used on most Teres-type tables: less slewing of leading edge transients, better pitch accuracy on sustained notes, slightly more dynamic.

I'd expect his improvement was not as large on the big CA table as on mine. After all, he did have three motors and three belts vs. my one, but it was an audible uprgade and he's sticking with it (unless he decides to try the Verus of course).

Not much, but I hope that helps,
Doug

I was going to mention the hole in Pauly's economics, but Jtimothya and Cello beat me to it.

Saving 1-2% via improved cash flow by paying 80-100% more to subsidize dealer and distributor inventories is no savings, and believing so is naive.

Our banker friend didn't get a "free" trial, nothing in business is free. He paid for the convenience he demands and delivery on demand in higher prices. His dealer may not itemize inventory carrying costs and GSA expenses on their invoices, but they certainly built them into their markup before quoting Pauly a selling price. If they didn't do so, they'd go out of business.

Dealers charge margins to cover their costs and a profit. If there's a distributor in the chain between Oracle and the dealer then there are two margins. If Pauly were comfortable with a manufacturer-direct product he could have kept those margins for himself, at the cost of 1-2% cash flow and a waiting period. That's my idea of a good ROI.

This conversation is a diversion from the OP's question about comparative drive technologies and the Verus as a specific implementation. If it were entertaining it might be worthwhile, but it's just naive economics with an attitude.

Doug

Hi Tim

I don’t think a brick and mortar established dealer network is the way to go either. As you correctly point out, it takes significant investment. I doubt it will produce a significant enough increase in sales to cover the costs and even when finances is available and cost could be covered, cutting cost is always a good idea.

I was thinking more down the lines of an informal reference based system. The model I normally use to explain is that of a small builder. (I used to deal with small business loans some time ago and spent countless hours advising the business owners) Rather than having to build a spec house, pool, roof, deck etc., a builder can refer prospective clients to jobs he has done. I recently had my driveway paved and had a look at couple of jobs in the neighborhood before choosing the builder. A simple but very effective what to demonstrate your products and services.

There is a tremendous amount of goodwill in the audio community, so I am sure there will not be a shortage of folks who would participate. Their benefit would be a closer relationship with the manufacturer, and the prospective buyer has the benefit of talking to a ‘real’ owner rather than a pushy salesman. I have been invited into homes to look at both DIY speakers and amps, so I have no doubts this model would for a TT manufacturer also.

In short, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I am somewhat surprised at some of the responses I saw on the thread. It seems taking a risk is worn as a badge of honor.

As for trade-offs and the costs. Distribution channels and the convenience thereof has cost associated to them, that is true. So has machine tools and R&D. So to minimize cost, I chose a product where the sunk cost of R&D and machine tools were already written off, and not factored in the price.

I agree Teres is a successful enterprise and I wish them all the best. Hopefully one day I will have the opportunity to audition some of their products in the Philly/DC area.

Regards
Paul

+++ I was going to mention the hole in Pauly's economics +++

Yep, not having a dealer network does save money. 100% correct. But who do you think pays for R&D? Who pays for the machine tools? Yep, you guessed it … you do.

Sunk costs such as R&D and tooling costs are factored in the price, and low retail prices can be achieved only through economies of scale. The more units that can be moved, the lower the cost assigned to each unit. This is economics, pure and simple.

Besides, you think Oracle still has outstanding liabilities on the Delphi tooling machines? On R&D? I would think zero, no? The overheads on a Delphi is potentially much lower than that on a Teres.

If that sounds far fetched to you, consider a DL103. Dirt cheap with amazing performance. Denon can sell them at this low price via a dealer network because ALL
sunk cost pertaining to machine tools and R&D have been written off many years ago.

+++ His dealer may not itemize inventory carrying costs and GSA expenses on their invoices, but they certainly built them into their markup before quoting Pauly a selling price +++

My dealer doesn’t carry stock.

+++ If they didn't do so, they'd go out of business +++

This will come as a big surprise to him.

+++ Saving 1-2% via improved cash flow by paying 80-100% more to subsidize dealer and distributor inventories is no savings, and believing so is naïve +++

I cannot comment on your numbers other than to say that if they are indeed accurate no audio dealer on the planet should make use of a dealer network. Since the majority do, and I assume they have sound business plans, I can only surmise your numbers are either totally fictitious and/or you have left some ‘minor’ facts out to ‘prove’ your point.

That’s really not nice Doug.

+++ If there's a distributor in the chain between Oracle and the dealer then there are two margins. +++

Actually, there are many more margins than only two. Unless Oracle mine the metals and manufacture all the components themselves, I paid multiple margins. I do believe Teres also has suppliers, so you paid multiple margins also.

And if you used a credit card or cash card, you possibly help finance my Oracle. Thanks Doug.

+++ That's my idea of a good ROI. +++

Indeed. Since ROI is Net income/Investment, ROI is 0% if you keep the product, < 0% if you return it. To me, <0% ROI is not a good thing.

+++ naïve economics +++

LOL. Yep, it sure is.

Regards
Paul

I'd like to get back to the original topic. Since there are no "Primate Reports" to read I guess I'll play along.

I'm sorry. I can't any of this "investment" argument seriously at all! C'mon, we're talking about depreciable consumer goods here! There's no investment. You'd better be spending play money on this stuff or you're going to be in the soup lines later in life. I can just see me taking this idea to my investment dudes. "Hey, guys! I've got this great idea! Audio equipment!" I'm sure I could still go on with my great idea even after they all tell me to take my business elsewhere.

It's o.k., Banker Boy. I'm sure your Oracle is a fine 'table.

Oh! And since we're waggling packages at each other, every time you use the internet, pick up a phone, turn on your t.v., your helping fund my toys. Thanks, Banker Boy!